Deliverable - PASTEUR4OA

Working Together to Promote Open Access Policy Alignment in Europe – Synthesis Report

Deliverable

Grant Agreement number:

611742

Project acronym:

PASTEUR4OA

Project title:

Open Access Policy Alignment STrategies for European Union Research

Funding Scheme:

FP7 – CAPACITIES – Science in Society

Project co-ordinator Organisation:

EKT/NHRF

E-mail:

[email protected]

Project website address:

www.pasteur4oa.eu

Deliverable No. Deliverable Name

2.2 Synthesis report of Europe-wide project meeting of experts

Lead Beneficiary

Jisc

Dissemination Level

PU

Due Date

M13


D 2.2 – Synthesis report of Europe-wide project meeting of experts

PASTEUR4OA is an FP7 project funded by the EUROPEAN COMMISSION

This publication reflects only the author’s views – the Community is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

This publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license

2


Working Together to Promote Open Access Policy Alignment in Europe Synthesis Report

Birkbeck College, London 2-3 December 2014

PASTEUR4OA Project Jisc Mafalda Picarra

3


Table of Contents 1. Summary................................................................................................................................................................... 5 2. Background ............................................................................................................................................................... 5 3. Objectives ................................................................................................................................................................. 7 4. Participants ............................................................................................................................................................... 7 5. Meeting of National Experts Programme .................................................................................................................. 9 5.1 Day One 9 5.1.1 Opening Remarks, Lorraine Estelle (Jisc) 9 5.1.2 Workshop Overview, Neil Jacobs (Jisc) 9 5.1.3 Evidence that Europe is Leading Open Access Implementation: An International Policy Analysis, Alma Swan (EOS) 9 5.1.4 PASTEUR4OA: Exploring the Co-ordination of OA Strategies, Activities and Policies across Europe, Victoria Tsoukala (EKT) 11 5.1.5 PASTEUR4OA: The Knowledge Net, Eloy Rodrigues (UMINHO) 12 5.1.6 Voting Session 13 5.1.7 Member States OA Policy Alignment with H2020, Alma Swan (EOS) 15 5.1.8 Countries Share and Compare: Panel Session with Three Countries Case Studies 16 5.1.9 Countries Share and Compare: Work Groups Session I, All Participants 18 5.1.10 Wrap Up, All Participants 23 5.2 Day Two 25 5.2.1 Opening Day Two and Reflections on Day One, Neil Jacobs (Jisc) 25 5.2.2 European Collaboration on OA and the Knowledge Net: Work Groups Session II, All Participants 27 5.2.3 Developing a Roadmap for the Effective Development and Implementation of the Knowledge Net, All Participants 32 5.2.4 Synergies, Disparities and Next Steps, Victoria Tsoukala 33

6. National Experts Meeting: Achievements and Implications .................................................................................... 34 6.1 6.2

Identifying Success Factors and Outputs to Support Overcoming Challenges Moving Forward: The Role of the Knowledge Net

34 39

7. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................................. 42 8. Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................................... 42 Annex 1 – Participants List ......................................................................................................................................... 43 Annex 2 – The Knowledge Net: Key Node Organisations .......................................................................................... 45 Annex 3 – Structure of the Knowledge Net ................................................................................................................ 46

4


Synthesis Report 1. Summary The PASTEUR4OA Europe-wide project meeting of national experts was held on 2-3 December in London and was attended by 55 participants representing the PASTEUR4OA consortium and the recently founded Knowledge Net. The meeting aimed to build on the experience of Member States (MS) and neighbouring countries in developing and implementing national Open Access (OA) policies. Moreover, it aimed to provide information on the rationale for advancing an aligned OA policy agenda across Europe which is in agreement with the European Commission (EC) Recommendation on Access to and Preservation of Scientific Information and the Open Access Mandate for Horizon 2020 (H2020). In addition, it aimed to promote discussions on the role, priorities, framework and strategy of the nascent Knowledge Net. The synthesis report outlines the key topics presented by the PASTEUR4OA project speakers and the invited speakers. It summarises the main conclusions drawn from the regional work groups’ sessions. It reviews the key issues discussed during the meeting and considers what the next steps are. In the first day issues related to OA policy, policy formulation, compliance and alignment, challenges, best practices, incentives and solutions were addressed. The first presentations highlighted what the latest developments on OA policy implementation at the European and global levels are, what the PASTEUR4OA project objectives are, and what the Knowledge Net objectives are. The countries case studies session provided opportunity for the speakers to report on successful models of OA policy development and implementation at the national, institutional and research funder levels in Ireland, Norway and Belgium. In a voting exercise, the meeting participants were requested to vote on a number of issues that are relevant in their countries and that the Knowledge Net can help them address. The first work groups’ session requested participants to address and discuss the most pressing challenges identified from the voting session. In work groups, participants looked at ways in which the determined challenges can be addressed. In the second day, discussions evolved around considering a sustainable strategy to support the effective development and implementation of the Knowledge Net. The second work groups’ session focused on identifying ways in which the Knowledge Net will succeed in the long-term by considering which will be its priority areas of work and what role the Key Nodes will need to perform to ensure that the Knowledge Net succeeds in achieving its objectives. Subsequently, in a plenary session participants were invited to brainstorm about how the Knowledge Net should move forward. The conclusions drawn in the latter sessions will foment the development of a preliminary framework for the Knowledge Net. On the whole, the participants considered that the next steps in i) promoting the development and alignment of OA policies at the national level and in ii) ensuring the effective functioning of the Knowledge Net include (see Section 6):

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Disseminating the results of the OA policies analysis work and making recommendations on OA best practice; Refining the Knowledge Net’s mission, structure, activities and outcomes; Determining the advocacy materials to be produced and disseminated to national policymakers; Designing the programme for the workshops with research performing organisations and research funders.

2. Background In December 2014, the PASTEUR4OA consortium held the Europe-wide project meeting of national experts ‘Working Together to Promote Open Access Policy Alignment in Europe’. Important milestones were reached by

5


the European Commission (EC) on OA policy formulation which contributed to inform the programme of the PASTEUR4OA project. Since 2006, the EC has conducted and commissioned research work that resulted in the adoption of an agenda that promotes access to, dissemination and preservation of scientific information. As a result, three recommendations were made in 2012 reinforcing the European Research Area (ERA) partnership, promoting better access to scientific information, and supporting access to and preservation of scientific information. These recommendations have also informed the writing of the Open Access Mandate for H2020 which was published in December 2013. Fundamental OA related issues have been addressed through the work promoted by the EC. These include: a) Recommendation that OA policies are harmonised across Europe; b) Identification of the benefits of OA; c) Setting an agenda for OA. a) On the ‘Recommendation on Access to and Preservation of Scientific Information’, the EC advised MS to develop their OA policies on the basis of the same principles adopted by the Commission:

▪

Open access to scientific publications: ‘define clear policies for the dissemination of and open access to scientific publications resulting from publicly funded research [that include]:  concrete objectives and indicators to measure progress;  implementation plans, including the allocation of responsibilities;  associated financial planning.’

▪

Open access to research data: ‘define clear policies for the dissemination of and open access to research data resulting from publicly funded research [that include]:  concrete objectives and indicators to measure progress;  implementation plans, including the allocation of responsibilities (including appropriate licensing);  associated financial planning.’

b) The EC recognises that open access to scientific information is key to accelerate scientific research, technological progress and social well-being. It is relevant to promote the ERA ‘Innovation Union’ agenda, to support the circulation and access to scientific information in the ERA and to promote researchers mobility and interdisciplinary research. It is also decisive to promote the European Union (EU) harmonisation agenda. In the ‘Guidelines on Open Access to Scientific Publications and Research Data in Horizon 2020’, the principle of free online access to scientific information and research data is reinforced. It is considered to help:

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

‘Build on previous research results (improved quality of results); Foster collaboration and avoid duplication of effort (greater efficiency); Accelerate innovation (faster to market = faster growth); Involve citizens and society (improved transparency of the scientific process).’

c) By and large, open access to scientific information plays an important role in advancing research and innovation across Europe. Because disparate levels of progress have been made at the MS level to implement OA policies that promote open access to scientific information, the EC considers the following issues as being a priority:

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Development of OA policies; Implementation of OA policies that are consistent with that of H2020; Improvement of coordination on policy and infrastructural developments at the MS and EU level; Development and coordination of national strategies in a collaborative way;

6


▪

Promotion of engagement between stakeholders to ensure success in supporting OA policy development in MS ‘within a reasonable length of time’1. The priorities identified by the EC to promote open access to scientific information and the challenges encountered at the national and EU levels to promote the development, implementation and alignment of OA policies were factors that contributed to inform the agenda of the PASTEUR4OA project. More specifically, they determined the PASTEUR4OA priorities to be the following:

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Facilitate coordinated action in policy development at the MS and neighbouring countries level; Engage with and inform policymakers at the national level of EU Open Access policy and infrastructure; Establish a network of national centres of expertise that collaboratively monitor and champion an aligned OA policy environment, across the EU and in neighbouring countries; Analyse OA policies, measure OA policies effectiveness and identify policy-related gaps2.

Accordingly, the PASTEUR4OA Europe-wide project meeting of national experts laid the groundwork for the PASTEUR4OA project partners and the Knowledge Net members to come together and discuss a framework that promotes the development and/or alignment of OA policies across Europe, that supports the engagement of the Key Nodes with national policymakers, and that enables a sustainable development of the Knowledge Net.

3. Objectives The meeting brought together PASTEUR4OA project partners and national expert organisations which represented a total of 33 European MS and neighbouring countries. The overall objectives of the meeting were to:

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Support the development of supportive and productive relationships between MS and neighbouring countries experts; Enable compare-and-contrast exercises on the state of readiness in each country with respect to national policymaking on OA; Build on the experience of MS and neighbouring countries on development and implementation of national OA policies; Introduce the purpose Knowledge Net and the role of the Key Node organisations; Establish where the development of further expertise may be necessary to strengthen the effectiveness of the nascent Knowledge Net; Introduce the engagement programme aimed at policymakers.

4. Participants The meeting was attended by (see Annex 1): a) PASTEUR4OA project partners: Victoria Tsoukala, Marina Angelaki and Vasso Kalaitzi (EKT); Alma Swan and Megan Hunt (EOS); Eloy Rodrigues and Clara Parente Boavida (University of Minho); Jens Aasheim, Katrine Bjerde and Nina Karlstrøm (CRIStin); Gwen Franck and Iryna Kuchma (EIFL); Pablo de Castro and Keith Jeffery (EuroCRIS); Erika Bilicsi and Andras Holl (MTA Konyvtar); Claudio Artusio (POLITO); David Ball and Lars Bjørnshauge (SPARC Europe); Melanie Imming (LIBER); Neil Jacobs and Mafalda Picarra (Jisc); Yasar

1 PASTEUR4OA Description of Work. 2 PASTEUR4OA Description of Work.

7


Tonta (Hacettepe University); Jonathan Gray and Marieke Guy (OKF); Monique Septon (FRS FNRS); Brigita Serafinavičiūtė and Ruta Petrauskaite (Research Council of Lithuania). b) Key Nodes from the five European regions:

▪

Nordic – Anne Sandfaer (Roskilde University); Iris Tahvanainen (Lappeenranta University of Technology); Anna Gudnadottir (National University Hospital of Iceland); Ilona Johansson (National Library of Sweden); Katrine Bjerde (University of Oslo).

▪

Eastern European – Jadranka Stojanovski (Ruđer Bošković Institute); Daniela Tkacikova (Technical University of Ostrava); Marika Meltsas (Estonian Research Council); Andras Holl (MTA Konyvtar); Iveta Gudakovska (University of Latvia); Brigita Serafinavičiūtė and Ruta Petrauskaite (Research Council of Lithuania); Alek Tarkowski (Centrum Cyfrowe); Octavian Rusu (Association AnelisPlus); Eva Chmelková (Slovak Centre of Scientific and Technical Information); Mojca Kotar (University of Ljubljana).

▪

South Eastern European – Peter Stanchev (Bulgarian Academy of Sciences); Elena Diomidi-Parpouna (University of Cyprus); Victoria Tsoukala (EKT); Biljana Kosanovic (University of Belgrade); Yasar Tonta (Hacettepe University); Bardhyl Jashari (Metamorphosis Foundation).

▪

North Western European – Falk Reckling (Austrian Science Fund); Monique Septon (Fund for Scientific Research); André Dazy (Couperin); Christoph Bruch (Helmholtz Association); Louise Farragher (Health Research Board); Marie-Pierre Pausch (University of Luxembourg); Wilma van Wezenbeek (Delft University of Technology); Neil Jacobs (Jisc).

▪

South Western European – Claudio Artusio (Politecnico di Torino); Josianne Camilleri Vella (Malta Council for Science and Technology); Pilar Rico-Castro (Fecyt); Eloy Rodrigues (University of Minho).

c) Invited Speakers:

▪

Lorraine Estelle (Jisc), Niamh Brennan (Trinity College Dublin), and Bernard Rentier (University of Liège).

d) Invited Participant:

▪

Joe MacArthur (OA Button).

8


5. Meeting of National Experts Programme 5.1

Day One

This section summarises the main ideas presented by the PASTEUR4OA project and the invited speakers, overviews the results of the voting session, and outlines the feedback received from the first work groups’ sessions.

5.1.1

Opening Remarks, Lorraine Estelle (Jisc)

The future of scholarly communications is open access and OA brings benefits to the research community, the economy and society. Because of the benefits OA brings, the EC and various MS have adopted policies that require or encourage researchers to make their research outputs OA. However, the policy environment is complex and it is sometimes confusing. Such a complex policy environment often acts as a barrier to advance OA in general and to advance the EC’s aspirations for a single European Research Area where the free movement of researchers and free dissemination of knowledge are fundamental principles. Building on the successful MedOANet project and from the successful Knowledge Exchange partnership – of which Jisc is a founding member – the PASTEUR4OA project aims to support the development and alignment of OA policies across Europe. To do this, the PASTEUR4OA project is building a network of expert organisations. This meeting is the first step in bringing together the members of the network to discuss OA policy development and alignment.

5.1.2

Workshop Overview, Neil Jacobs (Jisc)

The PASTEUR4OA project is of major importance to advance OA policy development and alignment at the European level. The Knowledge Net will be a vital element to support more coherent policy development in Europe. This is the start of an important phase for OA across Europe. This two-day workshop will:

▪ Support the development of productive relations between experts from MS and neighbouring countries; ▪ Enable compare-and-contrast exercises on the state of readiness in each country with respect to national OA policymaking;

▪ Build on the experience of best practices from countries where OA national policies have been developed and implemented;

▪ Introduce the purpose of the Knowledge Net and the role of the Key Nodes; ▪ Establish where the development of further expertise may be required to strengthen the effectiveness of the nascent Knowledge Net. Gaps on OA expertise have been identified in European countries. Consequently, it is important to understand how those gaps can be filled and how engagement with policymakers can be advanced. These are practical issues that the Knowledge Net will seek to address. The Knowledge Net is a nascent Europe-wide network engaged in promoting OA policy development, implementation and alignment in agreement with the H2020 OA policy. The Knowledge Exchange – a network of which Jisc is a founding member – has inspired the development of the Knowledge Net. The Knowledge Exchange was founded in 2005 and is an organisation composed by five partners: Jisc (United Kingdom), CSC (Finland), DEFF (Denmark), DGF (Germany) and SURF (Netherlands). It promotes work on open access, research data, virtual research environments, and licensing contents. It has commissioned studies and workshops on OA and has influenced policymakers and informed partners work.

5.1.3

Evidence that Europe is Leading Open Access Implementation: An International Policy Analysis, Alma Swan (EOS)

9


In December 2013, the EC issued the H2020 OA policy. In a nutshell, the H2020 OA policy sets the following principles:

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Is mandatory for peer-reviewed publications; Requires Green OA mandate (repositories);  Publish as normal in subscription-based journals;  Place author’s copy in OA repository. Permits payments from grants for OA journal publication: Gold OA; Is mute on monographs; Is definite on data, announcing an open data pilot for H2020.

Research being conducted as part of the PASTEUR4OA project on OA policies and policies effectiveness has already produced some important results. Preliminary results are briefly discussed below and a full report will be published in January 2015. OA Policies At the global level, there are 651 OA policies. Europe is the region with more OA policies. A total of 356 OA policies have been adopted throughout Europe. North America is the second region with more OA policies adopted worldwide, with a total of 146 policies currently in place. Policy Formulation Results from the research being conducted on the analysis of OA policies have demonstrated that the following elements are essential in policy formulation if policies are to succeed:

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Policies must be mandatory; Publications must be deposited immediately (at acceptance for publication); Deposit is required, but OA itself may come later; Deposit must be connected to research assessment.

OA mandates Europe is the region where the largest number of OA policies adopted are mandatory; 203 mandates from of a total of 356 mandates. North America is in second position with a total of 70 mandates. Deposit OA policies are more effective if immediate deposit is required. A total of 52 Green OA policies, or 15% from the total sample, require deposit on the acceptance date. However, the largest number of Green OA policies do not mention when deposit is required – 143 policies from a total universe of 335 policies or 41% in total. Moreover, it is mainly at the institutional level rather than at the funder level that more Green OA policies do not make reference to the time of deposit. A similar pattern is observed with OA mandates – i.e. policies that require rather than just recommend researchers to make their peer-reviewed publications available on open access by depositing the publications in repositories. At the global level, 41% of mandates do not mention when deposit is required. In Europe this percentage was higher, totalling 48%. Only 15% of mandates require deposit at the acceptance date (16% for European mandates) and 18% of mandates require deposit at the publication date (9% for European mandates). Similarly, it is mainly institutional OA mandates – in comparison with funders’ mandates – that do not make reference to the required date of deposit. Research assessment OA mandates that relate deposit with research evaluation have proved to be successful in ensuring policy compliance. However, the number of mandates linking deposit to research assessment is still low. Only 5 mandates in Europe, 4 in North America and 5 in Asia relate these two elements.

10


Gold OA Gold OA is not a requirement in any of the policies currently in place. Notwithstanding, three funders policies emphasise or prefer Gold OA. These include the RCUK’s policy, the Swedish Research Council policy and the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) policy. From the total number of policies that encourage Gold OA worldwide, 3.3% provide costs from grant for Gold OA publishing. 2.7% of funders provide additional funds for Gold OA costs and 9.6% of institutions have a Gold OA fund. Challenges for the Voting Session Two OA related challenges were introduced by the speaker which informed the voting exercise that participants were later requested to take part in:

▪ ▪ 5.1.4

Lack of awareness and understanding (and therefore engagement) by national policymakers; Resistance to the concept of openness.

PASTEUR4OA: Exploring the Co-ordination of OA Strategies, Activities and Policies across Europe, Victoria Tsoukala (EKT)

The PASTEUR4OA project started in February 2014. The project includes partners from 15 organisations representing 10 countries from across Europe. The National Documentation Centre (EKT) coordinates the PASTEUR4OA project. The concept of the PASTEUR4OA project is centred on:

▪ ▪ ▪

Expediting understanding and awareness on open access; Facilitating policy development that is aligned with the EC Recommendation and Horizon 2020, particularly for funders and universities; Delivering a coordinated network of expert organisations across Europe (Knowledge Net) for advocacy.

Challenges in promoting OA policy development, implementation and alignment in MS and neighbouring countries include:

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Different levels of progress in different MS towards policies (funders and universities/research centres); Lack of awareness among policymakers; Open access to scientific information may not be a priority for policymakers in some countries; Lack of information on policy effectiveness (in countries with policies) – detailed information is necessary.

To overcome these challenges, the PASTEUR4OA project proposes to:

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Analyse OA policies: to assess the current situation and provide evidence based argument; Potentiate the Knowledge Net: to develop tools that can assist the Key Nodes to address national challenges, to develop regional and country-specific approaches; Engage with policymakers: to promote policy development, implementation and alignment in a direct a systematic mode; Liaise with related projects (FOSTER, OpenAIRE) and activities: to explore synergies.

PASTEUR4OA expected outcomes encompass:

▪ ▪ ▪

Contribution to coordination of OA policies; Address Key Nodes needs at the national level; Support Key Nodes role in advancing the OA policy alignment agenda.

11


Challenges for the Voting Session Two OA related challenges were introduced by the speaker which informed the voting exercise that participants were later requested to take part in:

▪ ▪ 5.1.5

Attention of funders and research performing organisations (RPOs) not directed to open access because of more serious problems (e.g. financial problems, lack of infrastructure) = OA not a priority; Lack of understanding of the processes involved in developing policies.

PASTEUR4OA: The Knowledge Net, Eloy Rodrigues (UMINHO)

The foundation of the Knowledge Net is linked to the EC recommendations that MS develop and align OA policies with that of H2020 and promote coordinate activities at the MS and EU level. It also recognises that various European countries are faced with identical challenges:

▪ ▪ ▪

Disparate levels of OA awareness, activities, infrastructures and policies; Lack of alignment/consistency on OA policies; Lack of coordination between OA initiatives, infrastructures and organisations.

As a result, the Knowledge Net aims to:

▪ ▪ ▪

Establish a network of national centres of expertise – known as Key Node organisations – in MS that can monitor and champion an aligned OA policy environment across the EU and in neighbouring countries; Establish a Europe-wide network of Key Node organisations that represent national expertise on OA and scholarly communication issues in each member state; Promote coordinated work among the Key Node organisations and the EC into the future and after the PASTEUR4OA project ends.

The Key Nodes responsibilities include:

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Identifying national policymakers; Creating or taking advantage of any existing OA working groups; Developing a programme of activities to engage with policymakers; Identifying policymakers who will attend one of the two types of regional workshops; Acting as the national centre of expertise on OA into the future; Acting as the Key Node for their country within the Europe-wide Knowledge Net.

The Knowledge Net is currently composed by 33 member organisations that act as Key Nodes. The current structure of the Knowledge Net is sub-divided into 5 regions that are coordinated by:

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

CRIStin – Regional Coordinator of the Nordic region; EOS – Regional Coordinator of the North West Europe region; EIFL – Regional Coordinator of the East Europe region; EKT – Regional Coordinator of the South East Europe region; UMINHO – Regional Coordinator of the South West Europe region.

The programme of activities of the Knowledge Net includes:

▪

Identifying national policymakers: national representatives from research performing organisations, funding organisations, etc.

12


▪ ▪

Informing policymakers on OA related issues through individual engagement and advocacy materials (e.g. guidelines, case studies, briefing papers, etc.). Identifying policymakers who will attend one of the two regional workshops for research performing organisations and for research funders. The workshops aim to demonstrate progress on OA policy, highlight the importance of good policymaking, and explain the need to align policy across Europe.

Sustainability of the Knowledge Net:

▪ ▪ ▪

The Knowledge Net will be a self-sustaining collaborative network representing expertise and influence in OA across the EU; Members will commit to engagement in the long-term; Coordination of the network will be undertaken in the longer term by SPARC Europe as part of the organisation’s programme of activities.

Challenges for the Voting Session Two OA related challenges were introduced by the speaker which informed the voting exercise that participants were later requested to take part in:

▪ ▪

5.1.6

Maintaining regular and effective communication and coordination between relevant stakeholders (RPO’s, funders, researchers, etc.) at national and European level; Diversity of OA infrastructure maturity/readiness between MS (or even lack of appropriate, updated and resourced infrastructures in some MS) might constrain OA development and coordination.

Voting Session

Following the challenges identified by the three project speakers – Alma Swan, Victoria Tsoukala and Eloy Rodrigues – that MS and neighbouring countries might have in developing, implementing and aligning OA policies, the participants were requested to select one answer for each of the following questions: 1. 2. 3. 4.

At this moment which is the most relevant challenge in your country? In 3 to 5 years which challenge do you consider to be the most relevant? At this moment which challenge do you feel least empowered about being able to address in your country? Which of these challenges do you consider to be the priority for the Knowledge Net to help with?

For each question the respondents could select one of the following answers:

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

The concept and benefits of openness are misunderstood by national stakeholders (A); Developing OA policies is difficult (B); OA appears to have low priority with research performing organisations and funders (C); Maintaining and sustaining effective coordination at national and EU levels has difficulties (D); Current infrastructure constrains effective OA (E); Member States arrangements with publishers to secure deposit rights and short embargo periods are fragmentary and inconsistent (F).

The total universe of respondents was 55 of which 44 respondents completed the voting exercise. In some cases, the answers for questions 2, 3 and 4 were skipped. Overall the results showed that the answer most voted for each question were: 1. At this moment which is the most relevant challenge in your country? OA appears to have low priority with research performing organisations and funders (C)

13


2. In 3 to 5 years which challenge do you consider to be the most relevant? Maintaining and sustaining effective coordination at national and EU levels has difficulties (D) 3. At this moment which challenge do you feel least empowered about being able to address in your country? Member States arrangements with publishers to secure deposit rights and short embargo periods are fragmentary and inconsistent (F) 4. Which of these challenges do you consider to be the priority for the Knowledge Net to help with? Maintaining and sustaining effective coordination at national and EU levels has difficulties (D) The voting results for each question are shown below. The results of the voting session were used to inform the discussion in the first work group session that followed in the afternoon. Figure 1 – At this moment which is the most relevant challenge in your country? 18 16 14 12 10 17

8 6 4 2

8

6 3

5

5

D

E

0 A

B

C

F

Figure 2 – In 3 to 5 years which challenge do you consider to be the most relevant? 14 12 10 8 13

6

11

4 2

5

4

5

4

0 A

B

C

D

E

F

14


Figure 3 – At this moment which challenge do you feel least empowered about being able to address in your country? 12 10 8 6 10 4

8

7

6

5

2

7

0 A

B

C

D

E

F

Figure 4 - Which of these challenges do you consider to be the priority for the Knowledge Net to help with? 16 14 12 10 8 14

6 4

7

8

2

4

3

2

E

F

0 A

5.1.7

B

C

D

Member States OA Policy Alignment with H2020, Alma Swan (EOS)

In the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) an open access pilot study was conducted which informed the writing of the H2020 OA policy. The H2020 OA policy in brief:

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Mandatory for peer-reviewed publications; Mandatory for Green OA:  Researchers publish as usual in subscription-based journals;  Researchers place copy of peer-reviewed publications in repositories; Payments for OA journal publication (Gold OA) are eligible; Mute on monographs; Definite on data, announcing an open data pilot for H2020.

15


In the ‘Recommendation on Access to and Preservation of Scientific Information’ and the H2020 OA policy, the EC recommends MS to:

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Develop OA policies; Ensure consistency between MS and H2020 OA policy; Promote coordination at EU level; Report on progress at MS and EU level; Establish multi-stakeholder dialogue.

The rationale to promote OA policy alignment in MS is to:

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Iron out dissonances for researchers working in interdisciplinary areas or on international teams; Support EU harmonisation agenda for ERA (research conditions, researcher mobility, etc.); Change authors practices and norms; Allow generic infrastructural services to be established in support of policy.

The H2020 OA policy embeds:

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ 5.1.8

Coordination across the EU; 28 Member States (some of which already have policies of their own); Some countries have centres of expertise, many do not; Some countries may welcome support, others may happily offer support; Coordination is key.

Countries Share and Compare: Panel Session with Three Countries Case Studies

Introduction The countries case studies panel session sought to demonstrate some of the successful cases in which OA policies have been developed and implemented at the national, funder and institutional levels. The case studies also sought to present some of the factors that have fomented the development, implementation and compliance with the respective policies. In some cases it was also demonstrated that promoting OA to scientific information – for instance by supporting an incremental increase in the levels of policy compliance or by promoting policy alignment – is a continuous exercise. Country Case: Ireland, Niamh Brennan (Trinity College Dublin) The advancement of OA policies in Ireland is linked to multiple developments that took place at the national and European levels. At the national level, an emphasis was placed on the contribution of academic research to advance Ireland’s ‘innovative knowledge-based economy’. Partnerships between academic institutions, funding agencies and enterprises have proved to be important to ‘maximise economic and social returns’ and to advance OA to scientific information. Private sector companies such as Intel Ireland have been directly involved in supporting OA to scientific information. At the same time, Ireland’s Higher Education reform agenda made it clear that there was a need to introduce more effective ‘review mechanisms, performance metrics and promotional criteria’ to which OA could contribute. At the European level, Irish stakeholders were involved in the processes of conducting research on and promoting policies that favoured access to and preservation of scientific information. The EURAB report ‘Scientific Publications: Policy on Open Access’ was chaired by the Trinity College Dublin Professor Jane Grimson. Ireland also learned from policies and best practices from other European countries where OA policies have been implemented.

16


In the years following the publication of the EURAB report, OA policies started to be implemented by Irish institutions and funders. The Irish Research Council for Science, Engineering and Technology (now Irish Research Council) adopted its OA policy in 2007, the Heath Research Board in 2008, the Science Foundation Ireland in 2009 and the Higher Education Authority in 2010. The Irish government announced the National Principles for Open Access Statement in 2012. The policy specifies that authors are free to choose the publishers and that no changes apply in the publishing practices. It requires immediate deposit of post-print version of the peer-reviewed article (i.e. the version with revisions made) and requires the release of the article to be made as soon as possible. It allows 6-12 months embargoes and promotes the use of infrastructures which are harvestable, interoperable and sustainable. In Ireland, there are also infrastructures and services that support OA. A repository network, the Repository Network Ireland (RNI), is composed by repository managers, librarians and information professionals. The National Open Access Portal (RIAN) harvests information from institutional repositories to make it more easily discoverable and to enhance the impact of researchers’ profiles and their institutions. The Trinity College Dublin is an example of an Irish institution that has an online repository and an institutional OA policy. The online repository, TARA, was developed in 2006 and the institutional OA policy was adopted in 2009. The College has a current research information system that is: CV-driven, fully integrated with complementary systems, updated and enhanced directly by the researchers, and whose input is mediated on-demand by librarybased services. Overall, Ireland has national, institutional and funder policies that are aligned with the H2020 OA policy. It has a National Steering Group on Open Access, a Repository Network, and a national open access repository infrastructure. Key stakeholders are increasing their focus on impact, accountability and reporting. Specific areas where further work and improvements can be made include: adopting fully comprehensive and better reporting, evaluation and impact analysis; improving understanding on Gold OA; addressing disciplinary differences; increasing human resources capacity; and setting a clear top-down direction and support for OA. Country Case: Norway, Nina Karlstrøm (CRIStin) The Norwegian education system is composed of 8 universities, 48 university colleges and 61 research institutes. Norway has a strong research basis with a solid scholarly communications system. In Norway, there is a national current research information systems (CRIStin), a national research council (Norwegian Research Council, NRC), a national harvester of repositories (Norwegian Open Research Archives, NORA), a consortium for repositories covering 60 institutions, and a shared library system covering more than 100 academic libraries. A national OA policy was defined in the White Paper on Research 2012-2013 which determines that all publicly funded research must be published OA and/or deposited in a repository. The national research funder, NRC, adopted an OA policy in 2009. The policy designates that all research funded by NRC must be published on open access. Peer-reviewed articles must be deposited in a repository and the maximum allowed embargo period is 612 months. The national and funder OA policies do not however specify the date when articles must be deposited. For publication of peer-reviewed articles in open access journals (Gold OA), NRC covers for part (50%) of the APCs costs for publications in approved journals listed in DOAJ and the researchers’ institutions must cover for the remaining (50%) costs. At the institutional level, 20 Norwegian institutions have OA policies of which 15 institutions have publication funds available to cover for APCs costs but only 1 covers for the costs of publication in hybrid journals. Institutional OA policies vary between strong Green OA mandates to only encouraging researchers to ‘do their best’. Norwegian institutions are more susceptible to variation on policy formulation – policies vary between researchers being required to deposit publications in repositories or only encouraged to ‘do their best’– and consequently the level of policies effectiveness will vary depending on how policies are formulated and to what extent compliance is required. Some of the reasons for variation between policies and for the resulting levels of compliance with policies relate to the strongly felt principle of academic freedom in Norway, to the strong tradition of self-rule in academic institutions, and to the deficit of information about OA within the research community.

17


To resume, there is a strong base for OA policies at the national and funder levels with strong Green OA policies that are aligned with the H2020 OA policy. PASTEUR4OA will play a pivotal role in promoting institutional OA policies alignment. Country Case: Belgium, Bernard Rentier (University of Liege) The University of Liege in Belgium is among the first European Universities to have adopted an OA policy (2007) and to have created an institutional repository – ORBi (2008). The University of Liege OA policy is mandatory. Compliance with the University’s policy is required and deposit of peer-reviewed articles in the repository is a prerequisite in internal research evaluation procedures. Researchers can not only deposit peer-reviewed articles in ORBi but also periodicals, book chapters, speeches, reports and other resources. The journey to ensure observance with the University’s policy was arduous and required a top-down approach but it proved to be effective and highly successful. The levels of compliance on depositing peer-reviewed articles in ORBi was of 86% in 2013 and is expected to reach 90% by the end of 2014. Full text downloads from ORBi surpassed a total of 1 million between 1 January and 31 November 2014. The University of Liege’s policy has been highly successful in ensuring high levels of compliance and this has directly impacted on increasing the numbers of readership and citations. There have also been other direct benefits such as researchers developing personal inventories, collection of statistical information, automatic generation of reports, and increased institutional visibility. Conclusion The three case studies illustrated some of the successful cases where OA policies have been developed and implemented at the national, funder and institutional levels in Europe. The case studies primarily sought to demonstrate what factors contributed to the successful implementation of policies. They also sought to raise awareness about some of the advantages related to promoting an aligned OA policy environment across Europe. For instance, to harmonise the EU’s innovation strategy, to facilitate researchers’ mobility, and to advance economic and social well-being. One of the lessons learned from the case studies was that the work to promote open access to scientific information is a continuous process where there is always scope for further improvements to be made at the institutional, funder and national levels.

5.1.9

Countries Share and Compare: Work Groups Session I, All Participants

In the first work groups’ session, participants gathered in regional groups. The regional work groups correspond to the Knowledge Net five regional groups: Nordic, North West Europe, South West Europe, East Europe and South East Europe (see Annex 2). In regional groupings, participants were asked to look at the most voted challenges from the Voting Session (see pages 10-12) and to identify which is the most relevant challenge in their region now. Subsequently, participants were asked to identify as many ways as possible that have worked in addressing that challenge. When requested to complete this task, participants were asked to consider: 1. Why did these approaches work? 2. Was there anything specific in that country that meant that that challenge could be addressed in a particular way, or could not be? Each work group had a facilitator and a rapporteur that gave feedback about the main ideas discussed in groups to the plenary session. Rapporteurs took notes about the main ideas discussed and a summary of the information discussed follows below.

5.1.9.1 Nordic Group Feedback

18


The Nordic group identified challenge F as the most relevant in this region. For this group, it is the fragmentary and inconsistent arrangement with publishers to secure deposit rights and short term embargoes that is the most pressing issue. To address this challenge, the group looked at the University of Liege approach as a model that has been successful in promoting compliance with the institutional OA policy. It was considered that determined preconditions are required to ensure the reproducibility of the Liege model in other institutions and funding agencies:

▪ ▪ ▪

A top-down approach; A strong leadership; A basis for evaluation.

The group considered that licencing negotiations must include:

▪ ▪

Self-archiving as part of licence agreements; Top level involvement in licence negotiations.

… but these are still fragmented solutions Suggested recommendations include:

▪ ▪ ▪

Strong mandates from funders requiring:  Immediate deposit;  Short embargo periods. From a certain point in time: only open access is accepted as basis for new funding applications; Strong national OA mandates must be in place to push funders to act. … overall it less difficult to implement strong funders mandates then to implement strong mandates for every institution

Communication is key to ensure success in securing collective deposit right and embargo periods. By using consistent and clear communication channels, stakeholders are able to:

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Provide facts and scientifically good statistics and indicators; Collect success stories; Give feedback to funders and governments to demonstrate that their mandates work; Provide feedback to researchers on increased visibility.

5.1.9.2 North West Europe (NWE) Group Feedback The NWE group considered challenge C to be the most relevant. According to the group, the most relevant issue relates to the fact that OA appears to have low priority with research performing organisations and funders. In general, the discussion mainly focused on the successful cases where OA policies have been adopted. For instance, on what factors determined the success of OA policies implemented in Ireland and at the University of Liege. The challenges still being faced that the current system has not been able to solve were also briefly discussed. Examples of success stories and evidence of the positive effects of an OA policy include:

▪

Connecting to and involving industry leaders in the benefits of open access to knowledge – strengthening the role of the university in the society.

19


▪

For example, Intel Ireland was represented in the launch of Ireland’s Open Access Research Portal (RIAN). Intel has been one Ireland’s private sector companies emphasising the importance of accessing academic publications for free and of promoting increased collaborations between the private and academic sectors. Providing additional evidence and metrics about the positive effects of visibility – webanalytics, repository indicators. For example, if the PASTEUR4OA releases information about criteria to assess the level of OA policy compliance, this can become an important resource to set general OA compliance guidelines which can be applied by institutions and funders around Europe and by the EC.

▪

Demonstrating that increased citations resultant from open access to academic publications are advantageous for researchers and have a positive impact on the university by for instance attracting more research funds, etc.

▪

Increased connectivity between researchers, the industry and innovation can also contribute to making the case for open access.

▪

Giving examples of high-level individuals with negative experiences in accessing academic publications also demonstrates the need for open access.

▪

Disseminating information about OA economic models as demonstrated in the various Houghton/Swan reports.

▪

Providing evidence that lack of access harms innovation especially for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

Being bolder and emphasising again and again what the current system is not delivering:

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

It is slowing down research and innovation; It is time consuming and expensive to find and get access to crucial information; It is extremely harmful for research and researchers and reduces the possibility to solve problems in other parts of the world; It is depriving research funders and research managers from doing a good job because they are not getting the most out of the knowledge produced, which leads to lost opportunities for universities, research funders and the society in general.

The way forward:

▪

Structuring the discussion on how to influence policymakers may produce better results if short-, mediumand long-term objectives are set.

5.1.9.3 East Europe (EE) Group Feedback The EE group identified three major challenges: C (OA has low priority), D (coordination at the national and EU levels), and F (deposit right and embargo periods). The group discussion focused on addressing two of these challenges in more detail: OA appears to have low priority with research performing organisations and funders (challenge C), and arrangements with publishers to secure deposit rights and short embargo periods is fragmentary and inconsistent (challenge F).

20


Challenge C (OA has low priority) Lack of financial resources:

▪ ▪ ▪

In Estonia the total amount of research funding is low. Grants are too small to cover for APCs; Hungarian universities are poor. They are small universities and have lower weight when compared with universities such as Liege, Harvard and UCL. Hungarian universities alone do not have a chance to succeed. Coordination at the European level is very important for small countries; In Croatia research is recently financed by a specialised agency. The agency is aware of Gold OA but not of Green OA. APCs costs can be included in grants but there is too little money available.

Sustainability:

▪

In Lithuania sustainability is an issue. Higher overheads for projects are needed. Especially for projects that deal with data.

Awareness raising:

▪

In Slovenia there is a lack of recognition about the real benefits of OA.

Policymakers’ engagement and ensuring compliance:

▪ ▪

In Czech Republic the H2020 OA policy recommendations were adopted but nothing is done concretely. Repositories are in place but there is no support from policymakers. The Polish government will have a national action plan and maybe a strategy as a result of the H2020 policy. However, this may not produce the expected results.

Cultural change:

▪

Researchers have been educated to publish in traditional ways for ages, OA is very recent. Researchers don’t like to be told what to do. They don’t know what Green OA is.

Publishing:

▪ ▪

Polish journals are not concerned with budgets. Saving money is not an issue. Consortia subscriptions do not really save money. There are good examples of repositories and policies but never a convincing case. They do not see it as a rational solution. Research evaluation in Czech Republic is very quantitative. WoS and Thompson Reuters are not seen as being compatible with Open Access.

Green/Gold OA:

▪

In Poland, the quality of research is an issue. Good research is published in foreign journals. Green OA means that valuable research gets deposited locally, even if Gold OA journals are of low quality. Why would Polish institutions support Gold OA?

Challenge F (deposit rights and embargo periods) Burden on the researcher:

21


▪

Researchers should have the choice but what if publishers do not agree with the embargo period? If articles are accepted and published, researchers are happy and they will not think about negotiations with publishers.

Checkbox:

▪

It would help us if we have a checkbox in the publishers’ agreement. Having something similar to what happens to US researchers who cannot transfer copyrights and only need to tick a box in the agreement. Conclusion/Overall suggested solutions:

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

CRIS system might be the way forward; H2020 policy might encourage development of local policies; Educating researchers; Changing research assessment procedures (such as in Estonia); Checkbox.

5.1.9.4 South East Europe (SEE) Group Feedback The SEE group focused on identifying the challenges that from the voting session were considered to be the most important and relevant to the group members. The regional group members identified two among them: i) low awareness on open access, and ii) low priority given to open access by policymakers. These two challenges were considered to be interrelated. Overall, there has been slow progress in developing OA policies in this region. Challenges:

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

The benefits of open access to the research community are still not clear; Difficulties in understanding more complex issues such as licensing (FYR Macedonia); Low levels of awareness among researchers (Turkey and Cyprus); Having repositories is not sufficient to guarantee the adoption of OA policies at a higher level (Turkey); Changes in political posts in countries like Bulgaria and Greece have led to an absence of policy continuity. On many occasions OA advocates have to start their work from the beginning when there are changes in governments.

Progress:

▪ ▪ ▪

In Serbia the deposit of theses is now mandatory and the related provision is already included in the law that was voted in 2014; In FYR Macedonia an Open Education Alliance has been established to influence policy making; In Bulgaria awareness-raising activities (at regional level) will take place in 2015.

Ways to move forward:

▪ ▪ ▪

Horizon 2020 OA framework: it can serve as a tool to push OA forward by extending the related provisions to all publications, irrespective of their source of funding (i.e. European or national); Lesson-drawing: while countries in the region are late comers in relation to OA policies, this nonetheless allows them to learn from other countries success stories and failures and thus progress at a faster pace (from now on); Stakeholders: attention should be paid to engaging a broad range of stakeholders in the process.

22


5.1.9.5 South West Europe (SWE) Group Feedback Each member of the SWE group identified a different challenge as being the most relevant in their countries. As a result, the majority of the challenges identified were addressed by the group. Challenges:

▪ For Spain, the most important challenge was that arrangements with publishers to secure deposit rights and short embargo periods are fragmentary and inconsistent (F);

▪ For Italy, the most relevant challenge was that the current infrastructure constrains effective OA (E); ▪ For Malta, the most important challenges were that arrangements with publishers to secure deposit rights and short ▪

embargo periods are fragmentary and inconsistent (F), and that developing OA policies is difficult (B); For Portugal, maintaining and sustaining effective coordination at national and EU levels (D) is the most important challenge.

Challenge B (developing OA policies is difficult)

▪ In Malta, developing policies is difficult because there still is a lack of expertise at top and bottom levels and because there is a lack of human resources. A national OA policy is planned to be written in Malta;

▪ In Spain there is an articulated community of repositories and it has been easy to implement the national OA policy; ▪ In Italy there is a programme to finance young researchers. However, the policy does not make reference to the embargo period limit and it is not linked with the research evaluation process;

▪ In Portugal there is an active community and a solid infrastructure. An OA toolkit was created that explains how to develop an OA policy. This model was followed by the national research funder, and it was an input of the MedOANet Guidelines. However, there are still issues that need to be addressed mainly regarding the monitoring process and implementation. Challenge E (current infrastructure constrains OA)

▪ In Spain there are no issues related to infrastructure. National repositories are supported by Recolecta and the repositories community is very strong;

▪ In Italy there are issues around the economic sustainability of the infrastructure. A national support institution does not exist. The technical side is managed by each institution and there is a lack of investment in this area;

▪ In Portugal the support and sustainability of the infrastructure is done at the national level by RCAAP. A community was ▪

developed that communicates on a regular basis and that provides support. This can be a key for success; In terms of IT assistance and support within research performing institutions, the opinions were unanimous. IT assistance and support works well if the IT team belongs to the library.

Challenge F (deposit rights and embargo periods)

▪ There was an unanimous view that having guidelines about the position on embargo periods is helpful and that all the ▪ ▪

negotiations between institutions and publishers should be based on a common approach; A European guideline on embargo periods should exist in order to make it easier to comply with the H2020 OA policy; In countries like Portugal, Spain and Malta a unique institution is responsible to negotiate with publishers. In these cases, harmonisation of embargo periods can be more easily negotiated with publishers.

5.1.10 Wrap Up, All Participants The wrap up session at the end of the first day was used as a space for participants to share their initial thoughts about the meeting. The ideas shared by participants raised awareness to the need to address the following issues:

23


▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Agree on what OA is; Increase researchers’ awareness about OA; Open publishing: re-promote and re-think OA; Increase awareness about repositories (e.g. Research Gate);

▪ Reconsider publishers policies; ▪ Recognise that having OA journals does not necessarily help to promote OA at the national level; ▪ RCUK outcomes harmonisation project for publishing, peer-reviewed articles, etc.: harmonisation is progress but is this system the right one? In preparation for the discussions to be held on the second day, the Key Nodes were requested to consider the following:

▪ What advocacy materials and tools can be developed during the PASTEUR4OA project that can be made available to ▪

the Key Nodes and national policymakers? How can the Knowledge Net become a key player in promoting OA policy development and alignment?

24


5.2

Day Two

This section outlines the main conclusions reached on the first day, summarises the feedback received from the second work groups’ sessions, and highlights the main issues discussed in the roadmapping session.

5.2.1

Opening Day Two and Reflections on Day One, Neil Jacobs (Jisc)

The opening session was dedicated to reflect on what had been discussed and learned on the previous day, to set the agenda for the second day, and to revisit the Knowledge Exchange model and structure (as an example of a model that can inform the development of the Knowledge Net). Reflections on the morning sessions of Day One:

▪ ▪ ▪

We are beginning to know what makes an effective policy, e.g.  Deposit on acceptance;  Link to evaluation; We understand the H2020 OA policy and the EC Recommendations to Member States; We know what our main challenges are:  Low awareness, priority for OA;  Coordination, e.g. in addressing publishers.

Reflections on the afternoon sessions of Day One:

▪ ▪

We know that countries and regions are in very different places, for very good reasons; We have different priorities, e.g.  Aligning varied institutional policies;  Developing infrastructure to monitor and report on OA;  Proving the impact of OA to the wider economy and society.

We have a lot to do, on:

▪

▪ ▪ ▪

Incentives – what incentives can we engineer?  For researchers - what can we do to promote openness? e.g. - change how research is evaluated; - get great examples from younger researchers and students…  For policymakers - evidence of wider economic/social impact of OA; - evidence of impact of current, broken system; - evidence that their policies are implemented/effective; - personal relevance.  For ourselves – how do we ensure that we keep motivated and focused? Finances – which approaches help and which do not? Legal – can we take the Harvard approach in Europe? Technical – what is a high quality, sustainable infrastructure for OA? Do we have one?

And…

▪ ▪

Answers to all of the above are likely to vary between countries/regions Can we define “advocacy tools”/resources/ways of working within Knowledge Net to help us address these, as they play out in our own countries? =>> STRATEGY

25


The goal for today…

▪

Today, we are going to develop a strategy that supports an effective development and implementation of the Knowledge Net But before we do that, let’s… …contextualise how the idea to develop the Knowledge Net emerged…

▪

Back in 2007, the Knowledge Exchange commissioned work on OA to advocate for OA policies implementation and made a petition to the EC appealing for its support to promote open access to scientific information. The petition was signed by more than 20,000 people. As a result, the Commission became interested in the work the Knowledge Exchange developed, the advocacy campaigns it led, and the tools it used and developed. Since then, the Commission has supported the idea that a Europe-wide network that should be created to promote the development and alignment of OA policies and practices across European countries through coordinated actions. The effectiveness of the Knowledge Exchange and the support from the EC in developing a similar network at the European level have set the ground for the Knowledge Net to emerge.

…look at the structure and management model of the Knowledge Exchange3…

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

▪

Mission: to make a layer of scholarly and scientific content openly available on the Internet; Objectives: to establish closer international cooperation and dialogue; to influence the development of international strategy and policy; to deliver improved economies of scale to partners; Partners: CSC-IT Center for Science (Finland); Electronic Research Library (DEFF) (Denmark); German Research Foundation (DFG) (Germany); Jisc (UK); SURF (Netherlands); Management: KE activities are overseen and managed by:  The KE Group4: develops and directs the annual activity plan and report;  The KE Strategy Forum 5: sets the KE strategic direction for every 1-2 years and from which the KE Group develops its activity plan;  KE Steering Group6: directs the KE and coordinates activities;  KE Office7: acts as the KE main contact point and ensure the day-to-day administration of the KE. Funding: KE is funded by contributions from the partners. The contributions cover for infrastructure costs (small office), operational costs (steering and strategy group meetings), and work programme related costs to run activities.

…revisit the work of the Knowledge Exchange…

▪ ▪

The KE is an example that can inform the development of the Knowledge Net; The KE has sustainable business models for OA services:  Regular meetings of the OA expert group, including updates from members, which often provokes discussion;  At one of these meetings, we found that we had overlapping (but not identical) interests in the sustainability of OA services;  One member (Neil Jacobs) drafted an outline of work to meet the overlapping interests, refined and agreed on work proposed to KE;

3 Source: Jacobs, Neil (2014) ‘Knowledge Exchange: A Briefing for the PASTEUR4OA Project’ 4 The KE Group is composed by senior representatives from each partner organisation. 5 The KE Strategy Forum is composed by members of the KE Group, other experts from KE organisations, other national and EC bodies. 6 The KE Steering Group is composed by nominated senior managers from each partner organisation. 7 The KE Office comprises of a secretary and a coordinator.

26


 

5.2.2

The work comprises of reports on OA services status, sustainability models, sustainability index, workshops, and attempts to engage funders… Now further work is being conducted to analyse funder OA policies – i.e. on what services do they depend? – and present funders with risk assessment for their policies.

European Collaboration on OA and the Knowledge Net: Work Groups Session II, All Participants

In the second work groups’ session, participants were asked to gather in their regional work groups (see Annex 2). Each participant was asked to complete a few post-it notes with a sentence starting ‘The Knowledge Net will have succeeded in five years if…’ Participants put their post-its onto boards and the regional work groups’ facilitators and rapporteurs grouped the post-its. Participants were then requested to read and review the post-its groups. Each work group should end up with five groups of post-its, each one outlining some general success factors for the Knowledge Net. Subsequently, participants were asked to look at each one of those success factors and answer the questions: 1. What does the Knowledge Net have to do to achieve this? 2. What would each member have to do for the Knowledge Net to achieve this? Each regional work group rapporteur took notes on the main issues discussed which were subsequently presented in the plenary session. A summary of the main conclusions drawn by the work groups follows below.

5.2.2.1 Nordic Group Feedback The Nordic group discussion focused on considering how the Knowledge Net will have succeeded and on what the group will need to do for the Knowledge Net to succeed. The Knowledge Net will have succeeded in five years if…

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

…we have a clear mandate that fills a real gap in the existing landscape; …we are recognised by both the EU commission and national stakeholders as an advisory board; …there is sufficient funding at the national level (and EU?); …there is room within the organisation for regional groups and national differences (e.g. the Nordic OA Forum); …we work in close cooperation with groups like OpenAIRE focusing on implementation (under a common umbrella?); …national policies are aligned at the EU level; …if all major funders have policies consistent with PASTEUR4OA recommendations and have implemented them; …researchers are well informed about OA and trust that OA publications are valuable; …national policies are aligned at the EU level; …the Knowledge Net/Key Nodes have become the place to go for good help on OA policy implementation; …publishers have changed their business models as a result of aligned policies and aligned negotiations.

How do we do it? We mix it up with what the PASTEUR4OA project should do to make the Knowledge Net succeed:

▪ ▪ ▪

…set clear goals; …provide guidelines; …provide facts, numbers, evidence, …

27


5.2.2.2 North West Europe (NWE) Group Feedback The post-its collected by the NWE group were grouped into the following themes:

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Knowledge Net Data Metrics and Compliance Publishers Coordination Researchers Public Awareness Infrastructure Copyrights Policy Advocacy Achievements!

The NWE group has subsequently narrowed down the themes to focus the discussion on those that it considered to be the most relevant:

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Knowledge Net internal affairs: how should the Knowledge Net be developed? How should it work? Should it be a programme or an organisation? What model of sustainability and funding for the Knowledge Net? Policy: measure policy compliance; Infrastructure: ability to facilitate the support for infrastructure to be funded; Metrics: implementation of metrics that provide evidence of OA; Advocacy, Researchers: promote change in behaviour; Success.

The following step was to consider what the Knowledge Net and its members will need to do to ensure the success of the network: Knowledge Net:

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

It needs to take into consideration that member states will have achieved different levels of development and that each will have different objectives; Promote policy related work with a focus on advocacy; Promote dialogue with other organisations on a number of OA related issues (e.g. infrastructure), promote the development of work on these issues and support the development of funding mechanisms; The purpose of the Knowledge Net must be clear so that it does not collide with the work of other programmes and organisations.

Key Nodes:

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Develop channels of communications; Build trust among each other; Agree on plans and activities; Divide tasks among each other;

28


▪ ▪ ▪

Agree on what the nature of the Knowledge Net will be. Will it be a legally or non-legally binding organisation? (e.g. the Knowledge Exchange is a legal organisation) Agree on whether the Knowledge Net will be a programme (will it have a mission, plan, achieve an outcome, and an end date?) or whether it will be an organisation (will it be a formal organisation with a work programme?)? Develop the Knowledge Net’s management and sustainability plan.

Additional remarks:

▪

▪

▪

The characterisation and diversity of the members of the Knowledge Net is an advantage because it includes various stakeholders (funders, RPOs, libraries, other advocacy organisations) → it encompasses members from various backgrounds and with distinct perspectives which will make the Knowledge Net stronger; The Knowledge Net can be both an organisation and have a programme. It can work on different programmes, communicate what their objectives are and how they relate to one another, and get that information across to various national and international stakeholders. The focus would be on policy area and on demonstrating how it all comes together; Will by 2020 the Knowledge Net have 28+ national OA policies aligned with the H2020 OA mandate?

5.2.2.3 East Europe (EE) Group Feedback The EE group considered the following issues as being key for the Knowledge Net to succeed in five years… Knowledge Net:

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Members feel their work was supported by the Knowledge Net; Formal and informal contacts/network; Advisory board both on national and international level; There is a strong leader - an articulate voice; Recognition of the Knowledge Net.

Key Nodes:

▪ ▪ ▪

Each MS has a centre of expertise to support policymakers and researchers in dealing with policy and policy compliance; 1 point of reference per country; Key Nodes are recognised by the EC and NPRs as the single point of reference.

Policy:

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Alignment of all national/institutional OA policies; A strong/common EU policy (+ checkbox on copyright transfer agreement/licences); H2020 style OA policies in all member states; Flexibility: differences between countries are recognised; Policies are easy to understand and comply with; Small scale measures included in written policies; SMART indicators on the practical application of the policies focusing on what will be the developments in five years; Research communities and universities act as bottom-up to promote OA policy.

29


Indicators:

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

80-100% of publicly funded research is OA; OA grows faster; 15-25% increase in deposited articles; Libraries save money on subscription/limit to profits by publishers; OA is understood; ⅔ of countries have H2020 style OA policies; 150% increase institutional OA policies; Researchers deposit without obligations; SME’s profit from OA research for innovation; Change of research evaluation systems.

Tools:

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

List of all policies/policy registry; List of best practices; Dissemination of information on new OA policies; Information on the latest OA developments in each country; Ranking of all policies; Regional group collaboration; Award system for ‘small countries’; Guidelines for policy creation (what + consequences); ‘Motivation’ for researchers; Statistics (digital agenda scoreboard and OA tracker).

What does the Knowledge Net need to do to achieve these goals?

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Strong Knowledge Net; Information registries (dropbox, policy register); Compilation of national case studies about policies:  Big ones don’t work - update page countries on OpenAIRE? ROARMAP update: check your own country’s policies; Changes in evaluation systems; Common standard: H2020 policy - show that it is widely supported, agreement on minimal standard.

What do individual members have to do?

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Workplan for the next year; List of meetings with policymakers; Short list of basic recommendations (copyright, embargoes, etc.) - acting on behalf of international project; Send information to national policymakers; Collect national and international data on compliance, download rates, etc., to showcase this information to policymakers (evidence based advocacy); Meeting plan.

5.2.2.4 South East Europe (SEE) Group Feedback

30


In the second regional group meeting members focused on examining the factors that they considered as the most important for the Knowledge Net to succeed. The group members did not question the need to establish the network but chose instead to focus directly on the factors contributing to its success and to safeguarding its future sustainability. Based on the answers given, the Knowledge Net will have succeeded in five years if:

▪ ▪ ▪

▪ ▪ ▪

It supports knowledge exchange. Lesson drawing has been highlighted by all group members who have also stated the usefulness of the case studies presented during the workshop; It acquires a formal structure that includes all major stakeholders (enriched membership, yet also paying attention to creating a solid group in each country); It has clear goals. Agreement on a set of common goals is in turn expected to facilitate policy alignment which has been considered as an explicit indicator of the Knowledge Net’s success. Group members have been quite ambitious in advocating that the Net should pressure for the adoption of a stronger commitment on behalf of the EU (e.g. through harder measures such as a Directive); It develops specific actions for stakeholder groups/countries, tailored to their specific needs; It manages to ensure its future sustainability. This question relates both to the extent to which the Knowledge Net will be able to secure appropriate funding (from the EC or possibly from other sources) and to its ability to acquire a more formal structure; It increases the awareness among policymakers on open access issues and on its importance.

5.2.2.5 South West Europe (SWE) Group Feedback From the post-its collected from the members of the SWE group, three main areas were identified:

▪ ▪ ▪

Sustainability of the network; Harmonisation/alignment of policies and infrastructures; Monitoring policy compliance and achieving high compliance rates.

What the Knowledge Net and its members will need to do to ensure the sustainability of the network:

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Maintain regular communication/meetings; Create/liaise with and maintain national OA Work Groups (with NPRs and OpenAIRE NOADs); Develop a work plan, identify working priorities, and address them in work groups; Liaise/coordinate with other relevant organisations/projects (SPARC, OpenAIRE, COAR, etc.); Consider the financial sustainability; Promote harmonisation and alignment of policies and infrastructures; Collect and update information about the OA landscape, building on existing initiatives (e.g. MedOANet Tracker, OpenAIRE Portal and national pages); Develop and offer tools (advocacy and training materials, mentoring, consultancy) according to the different needs/requirements of the countries; Develop studies and produce recommendations or guidelines about policies and infrastructures; Agree on methodology to monitor compliance; Monitor policy compliance in agreement with H2020 OA mandate and achieve high compliance rates; Facilitate or carry out studies on methodology and tools to monitor compliance in a harmonised way both at European and national levels; Disseminate the data on compliance rate, collected through the methodology and tools.

31


5.2.3

Developing a Roadmap for the Effective Development and Implementation of the Knowledge Net, All Participants In this session, participants were asked to share their views on how the Knowledge Net can be effectively developed. A preliminary roadmap was developed during the session. Firstly, participants considered how the Knowledge Net will be successful: ▪ Define what KN will be… Programme or Organisation? – sustainability; ▪ Recognised as an advisory board: interaction with other organisations; ▪ Visible results: policy alignment; consistent funder policies; a directive? ▪ Sustainability, relevance, recognition internationally, raise priority of OA; ▪ Facilitate development of infrastructure; ▪ Metrics for evaluation of research/benefits of OA; ▪ Advocacy improvements – clear understanding of policies; ▪ Practical help; united voice towards policymakers; action plans for specific stakeholders. Secondly, participants considered what the Knowledge Net will do:

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Clear goal setting; Provide guidelines, statistics, documentation, case studies; Create national task groups to report to KN; Identify work areas (real!); Monitor developments/tools to monitor compliance levels; Recognise needs of individual countries; Recommendations regarding licences/embargoes.

Thirdly, participants considered what the Key Nodes will do:

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Policy register? Update Key Node countries details on OpenAIRE; National/international guidelines made available, videos; Evidence based advocacy on country level; Europe-wide; Formal or informal arrangement? Funding of the Knowledge Net: how it will move forward.

Fourthly, participants considered the mission, activities, outcomes and goals, and sustainability of the Knowledge Net… Mission:

▪ Clear concept and definition of the Knowledge Net:

A testbed? The PASTEUR4OA project is a testing ground for the Knowledge Net → it seeks to potentiate the seeds for the Knowledge Net to succeed. A ‘sharing’ organisation - provide ‘direction’ to Key Nodes:  Provide evidence in the next 18 months of the PASTEUR4OA project that showcases the unique value and need for the Knowledge Net to exist. Demonstrate that the Knowledge Net can be self-sustainable. Implementation of aligned policies:  Need to define and implement OA policies in MS and neighbouring countries, promote alignment, and monitor compliance across stakeholders and countries → the Knowledge Net promotes policy definition and implementation! 

▪ 

32


▪ Provide evidence-based information regionally and internationally as a business case; ▪ Identify needs of Key Nodes outside the project. Activities:

▪ Create Key Nodes member profiles; ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Quarterly updates; Workshops with funders: identify national funders; Workshops with institutions: identify institutions; Region meeting co-ordination: roadmap alignment between countries and regions, cross-region sharing of information; Core list of policy properties; country specific variations; Develop a harmonised mandate proposal; Advocacy materials: what materials are needed in each country that the PASTEUR4OA can provide? Tap into other activities to inform about the Knowledge Net; Feed information on developments across Europe to existing vehicles (e.g. from Key Node countries to OpenAIRE tracker).

Outcomes and goals:

 Develop a hard and fast policy (template) on alignment with H2020 OA policy   

What would be the ideal policy? Do we have a clear map/idea of what is needed? How much should the policies be aligned and how much should they be different because of national differences? What ‘properties’ should those OA policies have? What are the key 3-4 points that should be on the national policies? (harmonised mandate proposal) Prepare/propose a draft on the ways in which policies are being harmonised across Europe

Sustainability:

 [no information] Related work and activities:  OpenAIRE  Liber  EuroCRIS  COAR  Science Europe  EOS 5.2.4

Synergies, Disparities and Next Steps, Victoria Tsoukala

In the closing remarks, the next steps for the PASTEUR4OA project and the Knowledge Net were highlighted. In particular, the prospective work in setting the foundations of the Knowledge Net and refining its mission, structure and objectives.

33


6. National Experts Meeting: Achievements and Implications The meeting of national experts brought together PASTEUR4OA project partners and the Knowledge Net’s Key Node organisations to:

▪ Discuss OA policy developments at the EU level as well as the EC recommendation for MS to develop aligned OA ▪ ▪

policies at the national level → Recommendation on Access to and Preservation of Scientific Information and Open Access Mandate for Horizon 2020; Coordinate activities that will advance an aligned policy environment in MS and neighbouring countries → Knowledge Net; Discuss a framework that will support the long-term sustainability of the Knowledge Net.

At the meeting, various OA issues were presented and discussed that related to the meeting’s objectives (see Page 5). The EC recommendation for MS to develop aligned OA policies and the H2020 OA policy were explained and contextualised. The PASTEUR4OA project objectives were detailed and the areas where the project converges with the EC’s agenda were highlighted. The aims, structure and activities of the Knowledge Net were described and the next steps considered. Lessons were learned from European countries regarded as frontrunners in the successful development and implementation of OA policies. Two work groups’ sessions provided the space for participants i) to discuss the challenges faced in adopting OA policies and advancing OA to scientific publications and ii) to consider how the nascent Knowledge Net can play a role in addressing those challenges and in advancing a harmonised OA policy environment across Europe. More specifically, the work groups’ sessions contributed to:

▪ Identifying the most important challenges faced in developing, implementing and aligning OA policies and to presenting solutions to overcome those challenges (Work Groups Session I);

▪ Considering how the Knowledge Net can address OA policy related challenges, what role it will play in a pan-European level, and how it can become sustainable in the long-term (Work Groups Session II). In the following sections, the outcomes of the two work groups’ sessions are schematise. They describe some of the issues raised and conclusions reached during the sessions and consider what some of the implications are for the prospective work and activities of the PASTEUR4OA project and the Knowledge Net.

6.1

Identifying Success Factors and Outputs to Support Overcoming Challenges

This section looks at what the participants considered to be the most important challenges in promoting the development, implementation and alignment of OA policies during the first work groups’ session. The information collected from the regional work groups is schematised in the table below. The table lists the most important challenges, considers concrete solutions to address those challenges, and identifies some of the outputs and activities that can be developed to address them. This table intends to i) be a tool that the relevant PASTEUR4OA partners can use to inform their decisions on the kinds of advocacy materials that can be developed and ii) be a source of information that indicates some of the issues that are a priority in each region and which can be taken into consideration when determining the objectives, priorities and activities of the Knowledge Net. A remark must be made in relation to the lessons that can be shared by some of the PASTEUR4OA partners and the Key Nodes. In some cases members of a regional group indicated that they were facing a determined challenge and other members of the same group were able to demonstrate what worked well in their countries and gave recommendations on how to address the specific issues. In other words, there are lessons that some PASTEUR4OA partners and Key Nodes can share with others that can also result in specific solutions and outputs to address determined challenges. Challenges Solutions Policy: Developing OA policies is difficult (B) -- > South West Europe (SWE) ↘ Developing policies is difficult because ▪ Developing a toolkit that explains how OA policy can be developed. It could be a toolkit there still is a lack of expertise at the top similar to the one developed during the and bottom levels and because there is MedOANet project and which was used by a lack of human resources.

Outputs/Activities ▪ OA policy toolkit and guidelines. ▪ Provide training and training materials to policymakers, funders and librarians on OA policy and policy related issues.

34


↘ OA policy does not make reference to the embargo period limit and is not linked to the research evaluation process.

the Portuguese national research funder to develop its OA policy. ▪ Raising policymakers, funders and librarians awareness about OA policies and providing them with training and resources on OA. ▪ Advocating for policy to include an embargo period limit and to link open access to the research evaluation process. The results from the OA policy analysis work being conducted in the PASTEUR4OA project will contribute with more information on these issues. ▪ Providing information about the University of Liege model may lead to the inclusion of open access to scientific information as a research evaluation condition.

▪ Relevant policymakers attend regional workshops.

▪ OA policy toolkit and guidelines address essential policy formulation issues such as embargo periods and the relation between OA and research assessment. ▪ Make resources related to OA policies, embargo periods and research evaluation available to policymakers. ▪ Write case study on University of Liege OA policy and on the process of relating OA with research evaluation. ▪ Raise policymakers’ awareness about how OA policies should be formulated in the PASTEUR4OA regional workshops with funders and institutions. ▪ Case study on best practices for policy ▪ Providing information on OA policy ↘ Issues that need to be addressed implementation and monitoring processes: implementation and monitoring processes. regarding the OA policies give examples of monitoring mechanisms implementation and monitoring that are successfully being used by processes. funders and institutions in other countries and explain how they can be replicated in other cases. Challenges Solutions Outputs/Activities Coordination: OA has low priority with research performing organisations and funders (C ) -- > North West Europe (NWE) OA has low priority with RPOs and funders, therefore the current research systems: ▪ Case study on the impact that OA has to ▪ Involving research performing organisations ↘ Is slowing down research and the private sector, to academic-industry and industries in the process of transition to innovation. partnerships and to advance economic OA. growth. Give examples of cases where ▪ Demonstrating the benefits of OA to more advances could have been made if academic-industry partnerships, to advance OA to scientific information was available. technological innovation and to facilitate knowledge transfer. ▪ Providing evidence that lack of OA to scientific information harms innovation, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). ▪ Factsheet with comprehensive benefits of ▪ Demonstrating the time saving and cost ↘ Is time consuming and expensive. It open access. Factsheet translated to saving advantages that OA facilitates to is difficult to find and get access to different languages. policymakers, funders and librarians. crucial information. ▪ Guidelines and factsheet detail the ↘ Is extremely harmful for research and ▪ Demonstrating the consequences of benefits of OA. Factsheet includes disregarding the transition to OA. researchers and reduces the possibility information on negative effects of OA not for problems to be solved in other parts being promoted. of the world. ▪ Factsheet with comprehensive benefits of ▪ Demonstrating how the knowledge produced ↘ Is depriving research funders and open access. in scientific publications can be better used if research managers from doing a good ▪ OA case study focused on successful made available on OA and how OA is an job because they are not getting the cases where OA policies have been advantage to academic libraries and most out of the knowledge produced. adopted by funders and institutions. Case universities. This leads to lost opportunities for study demonstrates what information and universities, research funders and the metrics are being collected. Case study society in general. highlights the advantages that the transition to OA brought. ▪ Case study and/or factsheet with ▪ Providing information and metrics about the ↘ Lacks evidence on OA metrics. information about indicators that provide positive effects of visibility – webanalytics, evidence of positive impacts of OA. repository indicators. Concrete examples of cases where metrics are being used and on the kind of information that they provide is included in the case study/factsheet (e.g. University of Liege). ▪ [same as above] ▪ Demonstrating that increased citations ↘ Lacks evidence on OA citations. resultant from open access to academic publications are advantageous for researchers

35


and have a positive impact on the university. ▪ Factsheet with clear and comprehensive ▪ Disseminating information about OA information on OA economic models and economic models as demonstrated in the with a list of recommended readings. various Houghton/Swan reports. Challenges Solutions Outputs/Activities Coordination: OA has low priority with research performing organisations and funders (C ) -- > East Europe (EE) Lack of financial resources: ▪ Promoting dialogue with policymakers. ▪ Considering ways in which OA can be ↘ The total amount of research funding promoted based on (non-)existing funds. available is low. ↘ Lack of information on economic models.

↘ Grants are too small to cover for APCs (Gold OA).

▪ Raising awareness about Green OA as an alternative to publishing in OA journals.

▪ OA guidelines and factsheet.

↘ Some European universities are poor. Often they are small universities and have lower weight when compared with internationally renowned universities. These universities will not succeed in advancing OA on their own. Sustainability: ↘ Sustainability is an issue. Higher overheads for projects are needed, especially for projects that deal with research data. Awareness raising: ↘ Lack of recognition about the real benefits of OA.

▪ Demonstrating that coordination at the European level is very important for small countries to promote effective policy development and implementation.

▪ Explaining the importance of promoting coordinated activities in Europe in written resources and at the regional workshops.

▪ Considering ways in which OA can be promoted according to existing funds. ▪ Demonstrating the benefits of promoting and funding the transition to OA.

▪ OA guidelines and factsheet demonstrate the benefits and long-term savings resultant from the promotion of OA to scientific information and research data.

▪ Disseminating information about OA to researchers, funders and policymakers.

▪ Dissemination of OA case studies, guidelines and factsheet to researchers, funders and policymakers. ▪ Empowering key stakeholders (institutions and funders) to promote information and training sessions targeted to researchers.

Policymakers’ engagement and promoting compliance: ▪ Initiating a wider dialogue between ↘ In some countries H2020 policymakers, stakeholders and the scientific recommendations were adopted but community about H2020 OA policy. nothing is done concretely. In other ▪ Supporting stakeholders (funders and countries, national policies have not institutions) to develop a clear strategy to been adopted yet but it is expected that promote effective OA policy implementation. when they are they will not produce the ▪ Engaging in dialogue with policymakers to expected outcomes. promote the definition of competencies, tasks and responsibilities to develop and implement OA policies. ▪ Promoting advocacy activities where the H2020 OA policy is explained to national policymakers and where policy development and/or effective policy implementation is encouraged. ▪ Supporting policymakers to develop a clear ↘ Repositories are in place but there is strategy on how repositories must be used. no support from policymakers. ▪ Raising researchers, librarians and the wider academic community awareness about the existence and purpose of repositories.

Policy: ↘ Lack of OA policies at the national level.

Cultural change: ↘ Researchers have been educated to

▪ Setting meetings with policymakers. ▪ Dissemination of OA resources to policymakers. ▪ Regional workshops with policymakers.

▪ Meetings with policymakers and academic communities to discuss best uses for repositories and ways to raise awareness about repositories. ▪ Providing resources for librarians to hold information and training sessions with researchers on OA policies and online repositories.

▪ Providing information to policymakers on how to develop OA policies. ▪ Supporting policymakers in developing a clear strategy to develop, implement and monitor OA policies. ▪ Using H2020 OA policy is as a model and a tool to facilitate the development of national OA policies.

▪ Meetings with policymakers. ▪ Dissemination of relevant OA resources (guidelines, case studies, etc.). ▪ Relevant policymakers attend regional workshops.

▪ Increasing researchers’ awareness about OA

▪ OA case studies, guidelines and

36


publish in the same way for ages. OA is very recent. Researchers do not like to be told what to do. They do not know what OA is. Publishing: ↘ Journals do not care about budgets. Saving money is not an issue. Consortia subscriptions do not really save money. There are good examples of repositories and policies but never a convincing case. Publishers do not see it as a rational solution. ↘ Research evaluation in some countries is very quantitatively oriented. WoS and Thompson Reuters are not seen as being compatible with OA.

and demonstrating the advantages for researchers to make their scientific publications available on OA.

factsheets disseminated to researchers. ▪ Empower stakeholders (institutions and funders) to promote information and training sessions target to researchers.

▪ Advocating for OA publications to become visible. ▪ Raising awareness about OA and successful OA publishing models.

▪ Roundtable with local publishers to raise awareness about OA.

▪ Providing comprehensive information about OA. ▪ Raising awareness about OA initiatives such as Thomson Reuters Open Access Journals List (http://science.thomsonreuters.com/cgibin/linksj/opensearch.cgi).

▪ OA case study and information sessions that address issues related to OA publishing and ‘traditional’ publishing.

Green/Gold OA: ▪ Providing comprehensive information on the ↘ Research quality is an issue. Good Green and Gold OA routes. research is published in foreign journals. Green OA means that valuable research gets deposited locally, even if Gold OA journals are of low quality. Why would institutions support Gold OA? Current Research Information Systems: ▪ CRIS system may be the way forward. ↘ OA has low priority in institutions. Research Assessment: ↘ No mention of OA in career progression and research evaluation system can hinder OA.

▪ OA guidelines, factsheet, case studies, reports.

▪ Case studies, reports on effective CRIS systems.

▪ OA policy toolkit and guidelines address essential policy formulation. For instance: providing concrete examples where OA was included in research assessment procedures; explaining the mechanisms that were been put in place to monitor compliance with this requirement; demonstrating the impact that this procedure has had. Challenges Solutions Outputs/Activities Coordination: OA has low priority with research performing organisations and funders (C ) -- > South East Europe (SEE) ▪ OA guidelines, case studies, reports, ▪ Using the Horizon 2020 OA policy as a tool ↘ The benefits of open access for the factsheets. to push OA forward by extending the related research community are still not clear. provisions to all publications, irrespective of their source of funding (i.e. European or national). ▪ OA guidelines, case studies, reports, ▪ Raising awareness about licencing and ↘ Difficulties in understanding more factsheets include information on licencing copyrights. complex issues such as licencing. and copyrights. ▪ OA case studies, guidelines and ▪ Increasing researchers’ awareness about OA ↘ Low levels of awareness among factsheets disseminated to researchers. and demonstrating the advantages for researchers. ▪ Empower stakeholders (institutions and researchers to make their scientific funders) to promote information and publications available on OA. training sessions targeted to researchers. ▪ Supporting a change in the research assessment procedures. ▪ Providing information to the academic community on the advantages that OA will bring.

↘ Repositories are not sufficient to guarantee the adoption of OA policies at a higher level.

▪ Raising policymakers, researchers, librarians and the wider academic community awareness about OA and repositories.

↘ In some countries, changes in political posts have led to an absence in policy continuity. On many occasions OA

▪ Having determined checks in place to ensure a systematic engagement with policymakers and to ensure that relevant OA updates are transmitted.

▪ Meetings with policymakers and academic communities to discuss the importance of OA to scientific information. ▪ Dissemination of OA guidelines, case studies, reports, factsheets to key stakeholders. ▪ Relevant policymakers attend regional workshops. ▪ Meetings with policymakers to inform them about OA and to update them on the latest developments at the national and EU levels.

37


advocates have to re-start their work. ↘ Some countries are latecomers to OA.

↘ Low involvement of stakeholders.

Challenges

▪ Lesson-drawing: countries that are latecomers in relation to OA policies implementation can learn both from other countries success stories and failures. ▪ Promoting wider dialogue and engagement with a broader range of stakeholders in the processes of developing and implementing OA policies.

Solutions

▪ Dissemination of relevant OA information: guidelines, case studies, reports or factsheets. ▪ Dissemination of resources such as case studies, reports, factsheets to relevant stakeholders. ▪ Meetings with stakeholders. ▪ Dissemination of resources such as case studies, reports, factsheets to relevant stakeholders. ▪ Relevant stakeholders attend regional workshops. Outputs/Activities

Infrastructure: Current infrastructure constrains effective OA (E ) -- > South West Europe (SWE) ▪ Case study on how to develop a national ▪ Lesson learning: in countries such as Spain ↘ Issues around the economic support infrastructure, how to manage it, and Portugal there are national infrastructures sustainability of infrastructures. A what resources are required, and examples that collect information from various sources. national support institution does not of best practices. Looking at what lessons can be learned from exist. The technical side is managed by these and other cases can be important for each institution and there is a lack of countries where such integrated infrastructures investment in this area. do not exist yet.

Challenges

Solutions

Outputs/Activities

Publishers: MS arrangements with publishers to secure deposit rights and short term embargoes are fragmentary and inconsistent (F) -- > Nordic region ▪ Provide facts and scientifically good ▪ Replicating the University of Liege model ↘ MS arrangements with publishers to statistics and indicators. (incl. top-down approach, strong leadership, secure deposit rights and short term ▪ Collect success stories. basis for evaluation). embargoes are fragmentary and ▪ Give feedback to funders and government ▪ Licencing negotiations must include selfinconsistent. that their mandates work. archiving as part of licencing agreements and ▪ Provide feedback to researchers on top level involvement in negotiations. increased visibility. ▪ Strong funder mandates must require immediate deposit and short embargo periods. ▪ Open access must be adopted as a criteria for new funding applications. Challenges Solutions Outputs/Activities Publishers: MS arrangements with publishers to secure deposit rights and short term embargoes are fragmentary and inconsistent (F) -- > East Europe (EE) Burden on the researcher: ▪ OA case studies, reports, factsheets.▪ ▪ Educating researchers and informing them of ↘ Researchers should have the choice Case studies, guidelines and factsheets the advantages of OA. but what if publishers do not agree with informing researchers about OA in general the embargo period? If articles are and publishing agreements conditions. accepted and published, researchers ▪ Empower stakeholders (institutions and are happy and they will not think about funders) to promote information and negotiations with publishers. training sessions targeted to researchers. Checkbox: ▪ OA case study and factsheet make ▪ Advocating for the inclusion of a copyright ↘ It would help to have a checkbox in reference to the advantages of publishers’ checkbox in publishers agreements. the publishers’ agreement. Having agreements having a copyright checkbox. ▪ Raising awareness about publishers’ something similar to what happens to policies. US researchers: they cannot transfer copyright and only need to tick a box in the agreement. Challenges Solutions Outputs/Activities Publishers: MS arrangements with publishers to secure deposit rights and short term embargoes are fragmentary and inconsistent (F) -- > South West Europe (SWE)

38


↘ Issues related to embargo periods.

6.2

▪ Guidelines about the position on embargo periods is helpful and all the negotiations between institutions and publishers should be based on a common approach. ▪ A European guideline on embargo periods should exist in order to make it easier to comply with the H2020 OA policy. ▪ In countries like Portugal, Spain and Malta a unique institution is responsible to negotiate with publishers. In these cases, harmonisation of embargo periods can be more easily negotiated with publishers.

▪ OA policy toolkit and guidelines address essential policy formulation elements such as embargo periods. Emphasis is given to the importance of having embargo periods that are in agreement with those of the H2020 OA policy.

Moving Forward: The Role of the Knowledge Net

In this section, the participants initial thoughts on what the role of the Knowledge Net should be in terms of mission, structure, model, activities and outcomes are examined. The ideas proposed below derive from the feedback collected in the second work groups’ session. This information has been schematise to describe the main issues that will need to be considered when the relevant PASTEUR4OA partners proceed to the planning of the next phase of development of the Knowledge Net.

6.2.1

Mission

In the next phase of development of the Knowledge Net, a core priority will be to clearly define the founding pillars of the network. Two features were identified in the work groups’ session:

▪ ▪

The Knowledge Net supports inclusive coordination among a diverse range of European stakeholders to promote open access policy development, implementation and alignment at the national level; The Knowledge Net recognises that the Key Nodes have achieved different levels of development and builds on the strengths of all its members to advance an aligned open access policy environment in Europe.

6.2.2 Structure The formal structure of the Knowledge Net needs to be considered in the next phase of development (see Appendix 3). In particular, the following aspects need to be taken into consideration:

▪

Determine whether the Knowledge Net will be a programme or an organisation. For example, the Knowledge Net could be an organisation and have one or multiple programmes. It could work on different programmes, communicate what their objectives are, define how they relate with each another, and get that information across to various national and international stakeholders. The focus the Knowledge Net could be on policy and on demonstrating how it all comes together.

6.2.3

Management Model

The next steps in defining the management model of the Knowledge Net need to consider the following:

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Setting an advisory board; Selecting a strong leader; Having an articulate voice; Maintaining one point of reference per country;

39


▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ 6.2.4

Developing a strategy, objectives and work plan; Setting a clear objectives so that the Knowledge Net’s work does not collide with the work of other programmes and organisations; Determining the tasks and responsibilities of the Key Nodes; Promoting the development of solid relations between the Key Nodes; Setting regular methods of communications; Developing meeting plans.

Sustainability

The next step phase of development of the Knowledge Net must consider its sustainability:

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

6.2.5

Development of a plan that includes the long-term sustainability of the network; Setting a funding model for the Knowledge Net; Looking at various sources of funding; Looking at the funding models of similar networks and organisations to explore what options may/may not work.

Activities

A plan with the prospective activities of the Knowledge Net must be considered which is aligned with the network’s mission and objectives. Some of the activities suggested by the participants follow below: Advocacy: ▪ Support funders and institutions to develop policies aligned with the H2020; ▪ Promote harmonisation and alignment of policies and infrastructures; ▪ Promote the role of research communities and universities in acting as bottom-up advocates for OA; ▪ Promote change in behaviour; ▪ Give incentives for researchers to make scientific publications available OA; ▪ Promote change in research evaluation systems; ▪ Support the development of infrastructure. Awareness: ▪ Raise researchers, policymakers and funders awareness about OA. Coordination: ▪ National centres of expertise support policymakers and researchers in dealing with policy and policy compliance; ▪ Create, liaise with and maintain a national OA work group that include NOADs, NPRs, etc. Collaboration: ▪ Work in close collaboration with and promote dialogue with other organisations on a number of open access related issues (OpenAIRE, LIBER, EuroCRIS, COAR, Science Europe, etc.). Metrics:

▪

Set indicators in terms of what the Knowledge Net expects to have achieved in 5 years: % of increased funders and institutions OA policies; % of increased in deposit of peer-reviewed articles; money saved on subscriptions of traditional journals; % countries with OA policies aligned with H2020;

40


▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Collect statistics from Digital Agenda Scoreboard and OA Tracker; Collect national and international data on policy compliance, download rates, etc., to showcase this information to policymakers (evidence based advocacy); Agree on methodology to monitor policy compliance that is in agreement with H2020; Metrics for evaluation of research/benefits of OA; Policy: promote the development of policies that are clear, easy to understand and comply with and that are aligned with the H2020 OA policy.

Policy:

▪ ▪ ▪

Set common standard for alignment with H2020 OA policy; Establish small scale measures to be included in written policies; Develop SMART indicators for the practical application of policies focusing on what the developments will be in 5 years.

Resources: ▪ Develop advocacy materials such as guidelines (e.g. how to develop an OA policy), case studies (e.g. national case studies, methodologies and tools to monitor compliance), reports that provide evidence, facts and numbers; ▪ Develop short list of basic recommendations on licences, copyrights, embargoes; ▪ Collect and update information about the OA landscape, building on existing initiatives (e.g. MedOANet Tracker, OpenAIRE Portal and national pages); ▪ Create a list of all policies/policy registry; ▪ Create a list of best practices; ▪ Provide information on the latest OA developments in each country; ▪ Develop a ranking of all policies; ▪ Provide information on regional groups collaboration; ▪ Develop an award system for ‘small countries’; ▪ Create information registries (dropbox, policy register); ▪ Update countries policies in ROARMAP. Dissemination and Outreach: ▪ Disseminate information to national policymakers; ▪ Disseminate information on new OA policies; ▪ Disseminate data on policy compliance rates; ▪ Show visible results of policy alignment. Workshops: ▪ Develop the programme for regional workshops; ▪ Identify national funders and institutions to attend regional workshop. Needs assessment: ▪ Assess the needs of Key Nodes and develop other relevant activities. 6.2.6

Outcomes

The outcomes resultant from the work of the Knowledge Net must also be considered. Some outcomes were identified by participants:

41


▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Demonstrate that improvements have been made on understanding OA policy as a result of advocacy work; Demonstrate that more national, funders and institutional OA policies are aligned; Demonstrate that the Knowledge Net is the main contact point on OA policy and that is recognised as such by the EC, NOADs, NPRs and national stakeholders; Demonstrate that the Knowledge Net has influenced change in publishers’ business models as a result of aligned OA policies and aligned negotiations.

7. Conclusion The PASTEUR4OA Europe-wide project meeting of national experts provided the opportunity for the PASTEUR4OA project partners and the Key Nodes to discuss the challenges their countries face in promoting the development, implementation and alignment of OA policies as well as to discuss ways in which those challenges can be addressed with the support of the nascent Knowledge Net. It was acknowledged that different countries are at different stages of development with regard to enabling open access to scientific information and research data. More often than not, participants demonstrated that in their countries there are distinct priorities with regards to open access. Stakeholders in their countries can be more concerned with the implementation of national, funder and institutional OA policies or with the development of infrastructures to monitor and report on OA or even with the alignment of distinct institutional policies with that of H2020. As a result of the meeting, it was concluded that the Knowledge Net will have to act on various fronts and support the Key Nodes in addressing multiple issues. In addition, it was considered that the Knowledge Net can build on the expertise that some of the Key Nodes already have to help other Key Nodes addressing some of their issues. Overall, it was observed that a pan-European collaborative and joint effort in promoting the development, implementation and alignment of OA policies will bring cohesion and consistency to an initiative deemed as priority for the EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. The next steps in i) promoting the development, implementation and alignment of OA policies at the national level and in ii) ensuring the effective functioning of the Knowledge Net include:

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

Disseminating the results of the OA policies analysis work and making recommendations on OA best practice; Refining the Knowledge Net’s mission, structure, activities and outcomes; Determining the advocacy materials to be produced and disseminated to national policymakers; Designing the programme for the workshops with research performing organisations and research funders.

8. Acknowledgments I would like to thank Lorraine Estelle (Jisc), Neil Jacobs (Jisc), Alma Swan (EOS), Victoria Tsoukala (EKT), Eloy Rodrigues (UMINHO), Niamh Brennan (Trinity College Dublin), Nina Karlstrøm (CRIStin) and Bernard Rentier (University of Liege) for their presentations which contributed to the writing of this report. I would like to thank the Regional Groups Rapporteurs – Katrine Bjerde (Nordic group), Gwen Franck (EE group), Marina Angelaki (SEE group), Lars Bjørnshauge (NWE group) and Clara Parente Boavida (SWE group) – for writing notes during the work groups sessions which contributed to the writing of this report.

42


Annex 1 – Participants List Name

Country

Organisation

Jens Aasheim

Norway

CRIStin

Marina Angelaki

Greece

National Documentation Centre/NHRF

Claudio Artusio

Italy

David Ball

Netherlands

Nexa Center for Internet & Society, Politecnico di Torino (POLITO) SPARC Europe

Erika Bilicsi

Hungary

Katrine Bjerde

Norway

Library and Information Centre, Hungarian Academy of Sciences (MTA Konyvtar) CRIStin

Lars Bjørnshauge

Netherlands

SPARC Europe

Clara Boavida

Portugal

University of Minho (UMINHO)

Niamh Brennan

Ireland

Trinity College Dublin

Christoph Bruch

Germany

Helmholtz Association

Josianne Camilleri Vella

Malta

University of Malta Library

Eva Chmelková

Slovakia

Slovak Centre of Scientific and Technical Information

André Dazy

France

Couperin

Pablo De Castro

Netherlands

euroCRIS

Elena Diomidi-Parpouna

Cyprus

University of Cyprus Library

Louise Farragher

Ireland

Health Research Board (HRB)

Gwen Franck

Italy

EIFL

Jonathan Gray

United Kingdom

Open Knowledge Foundation (OKF)

Iveta Gudakovska

Latvia

University of Latvia

Anna Sigridur Gudnadottir

Iceland

Marieke Guy

United Kingdom

Landspitali University Hospital, Medical & Health Information Centre Open Knowledge Foundation (OKF)

Andras Holl

Hungary

Megan Hunt

Belgium

Library and Information Centre, Hungarian Academy of Sciences (MTA Konyvtar) Enabling Open Scholarship (EOS)

Melanie Imming

Netherlands

LIBER

Neil Jacobs

United Kingdom

Jisc

Bardhyl Jashari

Macedonia

Metamorphosis Foundation

Keith Jeffery

Netherlands

EuroCRIS

Vasso Kalaitzi

Greece


Nina Karlstrøm

Norway

CRIStin

Biljana Kosanovic

Serbia

University of Belgrade, Computer Center

Mojca Kotar

Slovenia

University of Ljubljana

43


Iryna Kuchma

Italy

EIFL

Ilona Lipovszky Johansson

Sweden

National Library of Sweden

Joe MacArthur

United Kingdom

OA Button

Marika Meltsas

Estonia

Estonian Research Council

Marie-Pierre Pausch

Luxembourg

University of Luxembourg

Mafalda Picarra

United Kingdom

Jisc

Rūta Petrauskaitė

Lithuania

Research Council of Lithuania (LMT)

Falk Reckling

Austria

Austrian Science Fund (FWF)

Bernard Rentier

Belgium

University of Liege

Pilar Rico-Castro

Spain

Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology (FECYT)

Eloy Rodrigues

Portugal

University of Minho (UMINHO)

Octavian Rusu

Romania

Agency ARNIEC/RoEduNet

Anne Sandfaer

Denmark

Roskilde University Library

Monique Septon

Belgium

Fund for Scientific Research-FNRS (FRS-FNRS)

Brigita Serafinavičiūtė

Lithuania

Research Council of Lithuania (LMT)

Peter Stanchev

Bulgaria

Institute of Mathematics and Informatics (BAS)

Jadranka Stojanovski

Croatia

Rudjer Boskovic Institute/University of Zadar

Alma Swan

Belgium

Enabling Open Scholarship (EOS)

Iris Tahvanainen

Finland

Lappeenranta University of Technology

Alek Tarkowski

Poland

Centrum Cyfrowe Projekt: Polska

Daniela Tkacikova

Czech Republic

VSB-Technical University of Ostrava

Yasar Tonta

Turkey

Hacettepe University

Victoria Tsoukala

Greece


Wilma van Wezenbeek

Netherlands

TU Delft Library

44


Annex 2 – The Knowledge Net: Key Node Organisations Region Nordic Nordic Nordic Nordic Nordic East Europe (EE)

Country Denmark Finland Iceland Norway Sweden Croatia

Key Node Roskilde University Library Lappeenranta University of Technology Landspítali, The National University Hospital of Iceland University of Oslo National Library of Sweden Ruđer Bošković Institute

East Europe (EE) East Europe (EE) East Europe (EE) East Europe (EE) East Europe (EE) East Europe (EE) East Europe (EE)

Czech Republic Estonia Hungary Latvia Lithuania Poland Romania

VŠB-Technical University of Ostrava Estonian Research Council MTA Konyvtar University of Latvia Research Council of Lithuania Centrum Cyfrowe Association AnelisPlus

East Europe (EE) East Europe (EE) South East Europe (SEE) South East Europe (SEE) South East Europe (SEE) South East Europe (SEE) South East Europe (SEE) South East Europe (SEE) South East Europe (SEE) South East Europe (SEE) South East Europe (SEE) South East Europe (SEE)

Slovak Centre of Scientific and Technical Information University of Ljubljana To Be Confirmed (TBC) To Be Confirmed (TBC) Bulgarian Academy of Sciences University of Cyprus EKT/NHRF To Be Confirmed (TBC) To Be Confirmed (TBC) University of Belgrade Hacettepe University Metamorphosis Foundation

North West Europe (NWE)

Slovakia Slovenia Albania Bosnia and Herzegovina Bulgaria Cyprus Greece Kosovo Montenegro Serbia Turkey Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Austria

North West Europe (NWE) North West Europe (NWE) North West Europe (NWE) North West Europe (NWE) North West Europe (NWE) North West Europe (NWE) North West Europe (NWE) North West Europe (NWE) South West Europe (SWE) South West Europe (SWE) South West Europe (SWE) South West Europe (SWE)

Belgium France Germany Ireland Luxembourg Netherlands Switzerland United Kingdom Italy Malta Portugal Spain

FRS-FNRS Couperin Helmholtz Association Health Research Board University of Luxembourg TU Delft To Be Confirmed (TBC) Jisc Politecnico di Torino University of Malta UMINHO Fecyt

FWF/OANA

45


Annex 3 – Structure of the Knowledge Net

46